New Testament

[dropcap]R[/dropcap]ecently I was reading through John Nolland’s commentary on the Gospel of Luke when I came across the following passage.

A number of scholars have attempted to support Lukan authorship on the basis of a claim that the medical background of the author was evident in his writing. The argument takes its rise from the study of Hobart (The Medical Language of St. Luke) published in 1882. Hobart compared the language and style of Luke with that of ancient medical writing in Greek and found many similarities. The argument is not finally persuasive because Hobart focused on the distinctiveness of Luke over against Mark but failed to take any benchmarks from other literature of the period of a nonmedical nature. What distinguishes Luke from Mark is a use of language that is slightly more literary. As Cadbury has demonstrated (The Style and Literary Method of Luke, 50-51; ]BL 52 [1933] 55-65), we may find the same sort of language use in the LXX, in the works of ancient Greek veterinarians, and indeed we should expect to find it in any reasonably large body of literature written by a well-educated Greek writer with some modest literary pretension for what he IS wanting. Luke’s writing is certainly consistent with experience as a physician, but it cannot be claimed that only a physician would write as Luke does.{1}

I found it interesting that Nolland, writing in 1989 cited an article by H.J. Cadbury written in 1933. Reading on I found many other references to articles by Cadbury, which made me think that it might be a good idea to make these articles more widely available. I contacted the Director of SBL Press at the Society of Biblical Literature who was enthusiastic about the idea. The librarians at Tyndale House, Dr. Williams’s Library and Heythrop College also gave their willing assistance in providing photocopies and scans. Thanks to all of them I can now make the complete of collection H.J. Cadbury articles from the Journal of Biblical Literature available for free download in PDF.

Commentaries on the First Epistle of Peter

The Argument

[Tweet “John Calvin’s Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles now on-line.”]

The design of Peter in this Epistle is to exhort the faithful to a denial of the world and a contempt of it, so that being freed from carnal affections and all earthly hindrances, they might with their whole soul aspire after the celestial kingdom of Christ, that being elevated by hope, supported by patience, and fortified by courage and perseverance, they might overcome all kinds of temptations, and pursue this course and practice throughout life.

Hence at the very beginning he proclaims in express words the grace of God made known to us in Christ; and at the same time he adds, that it is received by faith and possessed by hope, so that the godly might raise up their minds and hearts above the world. Hence he exhorts them to holiness, lest they should render void the price by which they were redeemed, and lest they should suffer the incorruptible seed of the Word, by which they had: been regenerated into eternal life, to be destroyed or to die. And as he had said, that they had been born again by God’s Word, he makes mention of their spiritual infancy. Moreover, that their faith might not vacillate or stagger, because they saw that Christ was despised and rejected almost by the whole world, he reminds them that this was only the fulfilment of what had been written of him, that he would be the stone of stumbling. But he further teaches them that he would be a firm foundation to those who believe in him. Hence he again refers to the great honour to which God had raised them, that they might be animated by the contemplation of their former state, and by the perception of their present benefits, to devote themselves to a godly life.

Due Diligence

This book is still in copyright. I have attempted the following to locate the current copyright holder:

1) Contacted the publisher of the book – no record of current copyright holder.
2) Contacted American publisher of another book by the same author – records out-of-date.
3) Wrote to author’s former College – no reply.
4) Wrote to author’s former church – no reply.
5) Posted a resquest for contact information on-line – no response.
6) Have had other works by this author online for several years and have had no contact from copyright holder.

As these searches have failed, I am posting the book and inviting the copyright holder to get in touch with me.

Pastoral Epistles Commentary

Introduction

I. The Author

The spell cast by Saul of Tarsus over minds of any moral earnestness admits of no question. Unlike his namesake, the first king of Israel, he was shortish of stature. Chrysostom styles him ho tripechus anthropos, and Augustine, playing on his Roman cognomen, paullum modicum quid; but the extent of the shadow he has spread over posterity bears witness to the hulk of his spiritual build. Indeed, his most ardent admirers do not pay him more signal homage in this respect than those detractors from his just fame who ascribe to his influence an age-long perversion of primitive Christianity so entire as to set him at cross purposes with his Master. Such a man’s career throbs with interest to all serious thinkers.

That career, as we all know, bisects itself into two wholly discrepant halves. To explain how the hunting leopard of Pharisaism came to he transformed into one of the Good Shepherd’s most docile lambs has always baffled sceptical ingenuity. The change of front is so utter, and pregnant with such far-reaching issues, that it positively demands the supernatural cause which he himself assigns for it to render the phenomenon intelligible.

But our theme restricts us to those closing days of this marvellous biography about which, strange to say, we know less than about the rest. Whatever he the verdict we pass on the Pastoral Epistles, it cannot be denied that they form a group by themselves, detached from the residue of Paul’s writings and attached to one another by links of their own. Some of the older commentators, in common with Wieseler, a German theologian of the last century, have sought to isolate Titus and the first Epistle to Timothy from its twin brother, and affix on them a date prior to what are known as the ‘Prison Epistles’. They seem to have thought that on any other supposition the apparent references to a revisit of Paul to Ephesus clashed with his declaration in Acts xx to the elders at Miletus that they should ‘see his face no more’. But there are two or three ways of parrying this over-hasty conclusion.